Rivera v. Gonzalez-Espinoza
- Loretta Preska
- 1:20-cv-09131
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
Rivera v. Gonzalez-Esponiza: Judge Kaplan ordered jurisdictional allegations amended by November 10, 2020, or the action would be dismissed or remanded.
The plaintiff, the defendants, and the status of the federal action were affected by the court's jurisdictional order and deadline.
What happened
In Rivera v. Gonzalez-Esponiza, the court found that the complaint or notice of removal did not adequately show that the federal court had authority to hear the case.
The court identified possible missing information about the citizenship of individuals and business entities, and possibly about whether the case was timely removed from state court. The order did not specify which deficiencies applied.
The court ordered that an amended notice of removal adequately establishing subject-matter jurisdiction be filed by November 10, 2020. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan stated that otherwise the action would be dismissed or remanded.
The detailed version
- Rivera v. Gonzalez-Espinoza · No. 1:20-cv-09131
- Loretta Preska
- Nov. 2, 2020
Background
Eliezer Rivera brought this action against Yanier Gonzalez-Esponiza and another defendant. The order states that jurisdiction was invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which generally concerns federal jurisdiction based on the parties' citizenship and the amount in dispute. The court found that the complaint or notice of removal did not adequately allege subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court's legal authority to hear the case.
Jurisdictional Deficiencies Identified
The court listed possible deficiencies involving the citizenship of one or more natural persons, corporations, partnerships, or limited liability companies. It also listed possible failures to adequately allege the nature and citizenship of business entities or to show that removal from state court was timely. The order did not identify which specific deficiency or deficiencies applied.
Order
The court gave the parties until November 10, 2020, to file an amended notice of removal adequately alleging subject-matter jurisdiction. The court stated that, absent that filing, the action would be dismissed or remanded. The order did not itself state that the action was dismissed or remanded. It was signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.